While CFF “Team” members continued to collect hefty paychecks, selling the styrene butadiene (SBR) fields to the City -- concerned members of the public were reaching into their own pockets to warn the public. In October 2012, the City Fields Foundation (CFF) projects' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was challenged in California State Superior Court in a lawsuit claiming that the City of San Francisco had violated the California Environmental Quality Act. The challenge was made by two concerned citizens and the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter. Jim Emery of the Office of the City Attorney of San Francisco defended the case for Ginsburg and the City of San Francisco. (Coincidentally, the City Attorney’s Office was listed as one of the authors of the very report being challenged).

CFF's Emblidge

Even though they were not party to the suit, and supposedly were not the creators of the report, the CFF legal representative, Scott Emblidge, filed a motion to have his private law firm intervene in the case on CFF's behalf and act as co-counsel with the City's legal team. Emblidge wrote, “City Fields has a strong reputational interest in the Project”.

Emblidge speaks, Hannan looks on

Nowhere in his motion was the goal expressed by the City Fields Foundation of ensuring safe or healthy environments for children. Instead Emblidge expressed concern that, “success or failure will directly impact City Field’s ability to fund-raise, lobby, and obtain government and public support for future field renovation projects.” CFF was allowed to buy their way into the suit as an intervenor for only $450.

Judge Teri Jackson, the sole judge hearing the appeal, ruled against the challenge. “We won a big match,” Ginsburg gloated.

Hirsch oversees the Court hearing

It was reported during the hearing that the attorney for the City of San Francisco had said that the plaintiffs needed to be taught a lesson. Emery had referred to the case as an “abuse by petitioners”. The City of San Francisco requested an extravagant figure of approximately $40,000 from the plaintiffs to recoup their claimed costs. Staff referred to this figures as “punitive”. CFF requested $500 to recoup their “buy-in” filing fee.

The plaintiff’s attorneys appealed the Superior Court decision, insisting that the SBR used in the project exceeded the safety thresholds for toxic chemicals. They noted that the Commissions “were not given the choice of non-toxic alternatives”. Emblidge cynically dismissed the appeal claiming that the “plaintiffs are seeking to undermine” the CFF project.

styrene butadiene in San Francisco

Meanwhile, as the EIR was being appealed the CFF “Team” was proceeding with two multimillion dollar styrene butadiene (SBR) installations, including the one being appealed in State Superior Court of California.